Charanjeet Singh Ghataure vs. State Of Punjab

Facts

Three petitions under Section 438 Cr.P.C. were filed seeking anticipatory bail. The petitioners sought bail in FIR No. 8 dated 21.8.2020, registered at Police Station Vigilance Bureau, Punjab F.S.-1, Mohali, under Sections 7, 7(A), and 8 of the Prevention of Corruption Act, and Sections 420, 465, 467, 468, 471, 201, and 120-B IPC. The FIR pertains to a tax evasion scam involving GST officials, transporters, and dealers. The petitioners claimed parity with a co-accused, Mangal Sain Goyal, who was granted anticipatory bail by the same court on 13.8.2021. The earlier order noted that the only material against the co-accused was a disclosure statement, and no other evidence was presented. The State opposed the current petitions, citing the gravity of allegations and the risk of petitioners absconding.

Held

The Court held that the petitioners were entitled to anticipatory bail on the grounds of parity with the co-accused, Mangal Sain Goyal. The Court noted that the State was unable to distinguish the petitioners' situation from that of the co-accused concerning the grant of interim anticipatory bail. While the State raised concerns about the petitioners leaving the country, this was addressed by the petitioners' voluntary offer to surrender their passports. The Court found the parity argument persuasive, especially given the limited evidence beyond disclosure statements that appeared to be the basis for the initial FIR. Consequently, the Court granted anticipatory bail to the petitioners, subject to them joining the investigation within one week and appearing before the Investigating Officer as and when called for. They were also directed to furnish adequate bail bonds and abide by the conditions under Section 438(2) Cr.P.C. The petitioners were further directed to deposit their passports, if possessed. The Court clarified that the State could pursue remedies if the petitioners failed to appear or if circumstances changed.

Key Issues

1. Whether the petitioners are entitled to anticipatory bail under Section 438 Cr.P.C. on the grounds of parity with a co-accused previously granted such bail, considering the allegations of tax evasion under the GST regime and related criminal offences? The petitioners argued that they should be granted anticipatory bail as they are similarly situated to Mangal Sain Goyal, who was granted anticipatory bail by the court. They relied on the previous order which noted a lack of evidence beyond a disclosure statement against the co-accused. The petitioners also offered to surrender their passports to allay the State's concerns about them absconding. The State opposed the grant of anticipatory bail, contending that the nature of the allegations, involving a large-scale tax evasion scam, warranted denial of pre-arrest bail. The State also raised concerns that the petitioners might leave the country, although this was countered by the petitioners' offer to surrender passports.